So Much for "All Men Are Created Equal"?

In your own life, absolutely.

However, as I've tried to explain in other posts, the granting and guarantee of certain rights is not subject to a popular vote. This is so not because of any belief of mine; it is the law of the land as laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is charged with interpreting our constitution. Whether same-sex marriage is one of these "not subject to a vote" rights remains to be finally resolved. I would predict that the question of whether same-sex marriage will be accorded the same "fundamental right" status as 1m1w marriage will eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I've been staying out of that conversation because one line finishes the discussion.

If we are a democracy, the people are allowed to vote what they feel is best for the country, therefore, if a vote has been placed before the people and they have agreed to ban whatever it is before them, that is the right given to us as Americans.

If you don't like how the people of a state voted on that particular ballot, you can move to another state or another country that is better suited for your beliefs.

The people have spoken.

I'm sorry, but that's just not accurate. Just as you cannot vote to institute slavery, or deny Asian-Americans (or any other group) the right to vote, there are certain rights that are NOT SUBJECT TO POPULAR OPINION.

I'm not saying this because I want it to be this way, that's just the law, whether you like it or not. A basic google search on constitutional law will confirm it for you, if you don't want to take my word for it.

Doesn't it depend on how popular the opinion is? There are amendments are there not?

So if a state, oh say California, put a provision on the next ballot that bans Republicans from voting in the state, and it passes, you would be ok with that?

If it banned Democrats posting on OP, I would be all for it!

Haha sucka! I'm a registered independent!

Quite right. There are ways to amend the constitution, which require supermajorities to pass. In the case of the U.S. Constitution, amendments must be ratified by 75% of state legislatures or constitutional conventions. I don't know what majority is required for the California constitution, and I'm not sure what the impact of the recent vote is. I have read that there are constitutional challenges filed in California, stating that only the legislature may adopt an amendment of this nature, for a variety of reasons that I won't bore you with here, but there is a bevy of information out there for the curious.

The thing is, even if the California amendment is ultimately upheld (and there is a wave of legal action challenging the constitutionality of it), if it impinges upon FEDERAL Constitutionally guaranteed rights, the citizens of California cannot adopt such an amendment. That will be the ultimate question, I predict, whether the "floor" of federally guaranteed rights includes same-sex marriage.

If the US SCt. ultimately determines that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right just as 1m1w is a fundamental right, no state may contain a contrary provision in its state constitution.

For example: no matter how easily a particular state might garner a majority to vote to amend its constitution to allow slavery, such amendment would be prohibited by the federal constitution. A state constitution may provide ADDITIONAL protections/rights, but may not go below the floor that the federal constitution provides.

Wasn't it 52% to 48%?

Oh brother.

My only point in this entire discussion has been that there are certain Supreme Court-recognized fundamental rights, such as (1) VOTING RIGHTS, (2) the right to be a candidate, (3) obtaining equal access to justice (e.g, divorcing, maintaining parental rights, and obtaining transcripts and securing legal assistance for a criminal appeal) and (4) the right to marry and procreate.

I am not advocating that this be so, it IS so. This is very basic constitutional law.

So, if the U.S. Supreme Court determines that same-sex marriage is to be accorded the same fundamental-right status as heterosexual marriage rights (cases guaranteeing this fundamental right largely had to do with the right to marry someone of another race), it won't matter if 99% of Californians (or any other state) voted to amend their constitution to ban same-sex marriage, it would not pass federal constitutional muster.

The entire point is that there ARE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO POPULAR VOTE! That's all. I'm not saying what should or shouldn't be such a right, just that there are some, and this could be one.

I've said before that I do not think a gay marriage ban will pass a constitutional challenge. But, by what you've posted here...

They won't let me do that if I have more than one wife either. Same thing.

You do know that the Torah is the first five books of the Bible, right? And that Jews not only follow Torah, but Haftorah (the Torah and Haftorah together make up what Jesus called, "The Law and the Prophets")... right?

Don't get so uptight... I wasn't arguing with you. I misread part of your post that you weren't sure what the vote was... That's all....

My apologies. I felt misunderstood!!

Forgive my little temper tantrum. I'm going to go take some deep breaths.

Get with steross and have an upside down beer....

I agree with you in regards to most of your argument here. I think it is of utmost importance that we lead the lost in love to the only ONE who can help them and us before and after salvation. I don't however agree with not calling sin what it is. I don't agree that dumbing down sin is the way to help the lost face the conviction that we all must face in light of our sin in order to be drawn to the Christ in the first place for forgiveness. IF we take away all the sin and say we are born that way (of course we are we are fallen and sinful), then we take away the very ability for us to face the conviction we need to face in order to repent. WE take away, in our minds only, the NEED for a savior.

I totally agree that Jesus hated religion and hung out with sinners (who knew and understood they were sinners), thank God! If he had not, I would have NO WAY of hanging out with him. But he also said, more than once, "your sins are forgiven, now go and sin no more." He did not say, "Your sins are no longer sins."

So, the lawmakers didn't put this law to vote? People just voted out of prejudice? If it went to a vote, then apparently the lawmakers, those who were voted into office, thought that this needed to be a vote for the people. I guess you don't want to live in a democracy?

Well, I'm a registered Democrat. So, I don't think my answer would hold any merit.

i don't care if you worship "The Oobdjort", a document written by the overlords Vylork and Muryorta in their space-visit that wiped out the dinosaurs. it is immaterial to the argument. that's my point.

don't try to trip me up on books of faith around the world. from now on, just to remove your basis of argument (and to limit your ability to change the subject from topics of meaning to my understanding of The Bible), i will henceforth always refer to The Oobdjort.